Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people

[Humanity]

You don't see that as already being discrimination?

How can it be when there is no state? When there is nothing to base that on?

Crystal ball time again!

 

[Shusha]

No. I also question a democratic society having a state religion - but then, I feel that way about any state that has a "state religion" - that is certainly not unique to Israel. Some states have it as a remnant of a past where the monarchy and religion was entertwined. Others have it in a more active sense, where the religion plays an active role in public life. I also question the capital being Jerusalem since theoretically all that was supposed to be resolved through negotiation not fiat.

I thought the part about Halacha was removed?

So your concerns seem to be centered not around the concept of a State for the Jewish people, or a national language or the other trappings of a national identity such as the flag, holiday calendar, etc. Your main concerns are about a State religion (which you correctly state are in many national constitutions and basic laws) and about Jerusalem specifically. Yes?

 

[Shusha]

You don't see that as already being discrimination?

How can it be when there is no state? When there is nothing to base that on?

Crystal ball time again!

They are the current governments of the two territories. They are the ones who will negotiate and create the peace treaty. We can't just ignore what they are actually saying and pretend it is not "real". What the current governments say about the future of their state is something to base that on.

 

[admonit]

Folks - there is some kindergarten fighting going on here, not going to name names, but take it to the Flame Zone if you want to go after each other. Otherwise - let's discuss the topic.

I'd like to add: the thread is not about Palestine. It's about Israel and her new basic nation law.

 

[Shusha]

Humanity

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coyote. Should both sides be able to demand a state free of "foreign national enemies"?

 

[Humanity]

They are the current governments of the two territories.

But hopefully that will change!

They are the ones who will negotiate and create the peace treaty.

Hopefully NOT!

We can't just ignore what they are actually saying and pretend it is not "real".

Ignore? No. Pinch of salt? Sure.

What the current governments say about the future of their state is something to base that on.

Hardly. If we believed what every politician said then the US would be "great again"!

 

[Shusha]

They are the current governments of the two territories.

But hopefully that will change!

They are the ones who will negotiate and create the peace treaty.

Hopefully NOT!

We can't just ignore what they are actually saying and pretend it is not "real".

Ignore? No. Pinch of salt? Sure.

What the current governments say about the future of their state is something to base that on.

Hardly. If we believed what every politician said then the US would be "great again"!

Interesting. Does this mean you think Israel should hold out for a better negotiating partner or two?

 

[Humanity]

Humanity

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coyote. Should both sides be able to demand a state free of "foreign national enemies"?

Not entirely sure of the meaning or context but, I would suggest that a state free of "foreign national enemies" is an impossibility!

 

[Humanity]

They are the current governments of the two territories.

But hopefully that will change!

They are the ones who will negotiate and create the peace treaty.

Hopefully NOT!

We can't just ignore what they are actually saying and pretend it is not "real".

Ignore? No. Pinch of salt? Sure.

What the current governments say about the future of their state is something to base that on.

Hardly. If we believed what every politician said then the US would be "great again"!

Interesting. Does this mean you think Israel should hold out for a better negotiating partner or two?

I believe now, as I have always believed, that Hamas is NOT the right organisation to deal with at any level and should be forced to hold free and open elections. However, there also needs to be a sensible alternative which, at the moment, I don't really see.

 

[Shusha]

Humanity

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coyote. Should both sides be able to demand a state free of "foreign national enemies"?

Not entirely sure of the meaning or context but, I would suggest that a state free of "foreign national enemies" is an impossibility!

Agree, but the question was more should a state in the process of ending a conflict be able to try to create a state free of people of foreign nationality who are considered enemies due to the conflict.

 

[Shusha]

They are the current governments of the two territories.

But hopefully that will change!

They are the ones who will negotiate and create the peace treaty.

Hopefully NOT!

We can't just ignore what they are actually saying and pretend it is not "real".

Ignore? No. Pinch of salt? Sure.

What the current governments say about the future of their state is something to base that on.

Hardly. If we believed what every politician said then the US would be "great again"!

Interesting. Does this mean you think Israel should hold out for a better negotiating partner or two?

I believe now, as I have always believed, that Hamas is NOT the right organisation to deal with at any level and should be forced to hold free and open elections. However, there also needs to be a sensible alternative which, at the moment, I don't really see.

Would you say the same about Fatah? And is there a sensible alternative?

 

[Humanity]

Humanity

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coyote. Should both sides be able to demand a state free of "foreign national enemies"?

Not entirely sure of the meaning or context but, I would suggest that a state free of "foreign national enemies" is an impossibility!

Agree, but the question was more should a state in the process of ending a conflict be able to try to create a state free of people of foreign nationality who are considered enemies due to the conflict.

In all honesty... I don't really have an answer on that one.

 

[Humanity]

They are the current governments of the two territories.

But hopefully that will change!

They are the ones who will negotiate and create the peace treaty.

Hopefully NOT!

We can't just ignore what they are actually saying and pretend it is not "real".

Ignore? No. Pinch of salt? Sure.

What the current governments say about the future of their state is something to base that on.

Hardly. If we believed what every politician said then the US would be "great again"!

Interesting. Does this mean you think Israel should hold out for a better negotiating partner or two?

I believe now, as I have always believed, that Hamas is NOT the right organisation to deal with at any level and should be forced to hold free and open elections. However, there also needs to be a sensible alternative which, at the moment, I don't really see.

Would you say the same about Fatah? And is there a sensible alternative?

I'm not so sure I would say the same. At least not as vehemently.

However, I would say that there needs to a change, a shift in leadership.

 

[Shusha]

Humanity

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coyote. Should both sides be able to demand a state free of "foreign national enemies"?

Not entirely sure of the meaning or context but, I would suggest that a state free of "foreign national enemies" is an impossibility!

Agree, but the question was more should a state in the process of ending a conflict be able to try to create a state free of people of foreign nationality who are considered enemies due to the conflict.

In all honesty... I don't really have an answer on that one.

Fair. Its easy, I think, to see both sides. On the one hand, having people remain in your country after partition who refuse citizenship and continue to see themselves as "enemy" is problematic. On the other hand, removing said people, especially forcibly, is ugly.

My preference would be for people in both new states to be citizens of the state of their residence, but permit dual-citizenship. That way it matters less where the border is, since there will be people of both citizenships in both states, and presumably, people with dual citizenships would be able to cross freely.

But I'm not sure that is realistic at this juncture. So alternatively, I'm at peace with the idea of removing people with generous compensation, hopefully voluntarily, if they wish not to claim citizenship in the state of their residence. And forcefully if they continue to act like enemies.

As long as it is applied equally to both peoples, I'm okay with it either way. Its a balance between what is morally right and what is practically possible.

 

[Shusha]

However, I would say that there needs to a change, a shift in leadership.

We agree. Its coming. Abbas can't live forever. My fear, though, is that the next generation is likely to be more like Hamas rather than less. Then what?

 

[Humanity]

it matters less where the border is

As someone with dual citizenship I think that the two countries I have citizenship in would disagree that their borders matter less.

 

[Shusha]

it matters less where the border is

As someone with dual citizenship I think that the two countries I have citizenship in would disagree that their borders matter less.

Ha! I also have dual citizenship (Canada/USA). What I meant by that is the border between an Israel and a Palestine won't have to be drawn in such a way that keeps the Jews on one side and the Arabs on the other because the assumption of the end result is that both states will have a substantial minority of the other. It gives more flexibility. But also requires more co-operation. And at least with dual citizenship, crossing the border is much easier. Always coming "home".

 

[Humanity]

However, I would say that there needs to a change, a shift in leadership.

We agree. Its coming. Abbas can't live forever. My fear, though, is that the next generation is likely to be more like Hamas rather than less. Then what?

You may recall several months ago I said that, in relation to Hamas, that they should be 'forced' to hold elections. I still believe that. However, there is no alternative at this time. Fatah? Maybe but with different leadership, with different, new ideas.

However, we cannot look at this situation in isolation. Israel needs to not just continue to march on it's merry way unabated. For example, declaring a unified capital? That is not what was proposed. That's does not help with finding moderate alternatives! And, no, I have no interest in arguing about that with you or anyone. There is nothing that would change my mind that Jerusalem should be corpus separatum.

 

[Humanity]

it matters less where the border is

As someone with dual citizenship I think that the two countries I have citizenship in would disagree that their borders matter less.

Ha! I also have dual citizenship (Canada/USA). What I meant by that is the border between an Israel and a Palestine won't have to be drawn in such a way that keeps the Jews on one side and the Arabs on the other because the assumption of the end result is that both states will have a substantial minority of the other. It gives more flexibility. But also requires more co-operation. And at least with dual citizenship, crossing the border is much easier. Always coming "home".

I am not sure that I follow your border idea.

There is a fixed border between US and Canada that can be crossed by Americans and Canadians and anyone with valid travel documents.

In some ways it is MORE important to have a very distinct, defined border between Israel and Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

I am not sure that I follow your border idea.

There is a fixed border between US and Canada that can be crossed by Americans and Canadians and anyone with valid travel documents.

In some ways it is MORE important to have a very distinct, defined border between Israel and Palestine.

I'm not in any way arguing against a fixed border. I am only saying that it will be easier in negotiations to DRAW a border IF we can be open to the idea that there will be a sizable minority of Jews in Palestine. It will get Palestine a more usable territory for their state. Make sense?